31–40 of 307 posts
So because Mark Zuckerberg won't censor people with different opinions he is complacent in spreading fake news and hate? Wow, that kind of rhetoric is dangerous imo. For once I actually think Facebook have made the right call. Censoring people is wrong and Facebook should refrain from doing it. Let me decide what is true and false, I don't need Facebook or other people to decide that for me. Good job Facebook, thanks…
Well that's good and well that you are independent, but the sad fact is that on average misinformation works, especially at scale. We don't really have a good grasp on the issue. It's in our culture to not regulate entertainment and media, but we're coming to terms with the fact that this can be turned against us.
I disagree with that statement. For whatever it is worth, we (both the government and private sectors) have a long history of putting "explicit lyrics" stickers on CD's, censoring lyrics for the radio, editing scenes out of movies on TV, threatening to prevent movies from release if scenes aren't taken out, adding age ratings on videogames and films, see also the Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act of 2005.
After the SSC debacle, NYT is likely to learn itself a thing or two about boycotts.
If we punish respected organizations (of any kind) for every gaffe, we would not have any left. In an era where the journalists are more under attack than ever, we might want to remember it is easier to tear things down than build them up.
So because Mark Zuckerberg won't censor people with different opinions he is complacent in spreading fake news and hate? Wow, that kind of rhetoric is dangerous imo. For once I actually think Facebook have made the right call. Censoring people is wrong and Facebook should refrain from doing it. Let me decide what is true and false, I don't need Facebook or other people to decide that for me. Good job Facebook, thanks…
Similarly, they have refused to fact-check (not remove) climate science denialism, because they consider it opinion and thus exempt from their fact-checking process. [2] As you know, because of a lack of consensus on climate change, little action has been taken, causing an existential threat to everyone including yourself.
Facebook is accused of spreading “fake news” because they are in fact spreading debunked or misleading stories to a large number of their readers, who have the mistaken assumption that Facebook would prevent incorrect stories from circulating on their platform. They are accused of spreading “hate” because Facebook has long been a breeding-ground for white nationalism, the consequences of which are evident for all to see.
I applaud you for being smart and above influence, but you’re ignoring the very real effects of this policy, which have been extensively documented both in academia and in the press.
[1]: https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-46083026
[2]: https://www.wsj.com/articles/facebook-to-create-fact-checkin...
After the SSC debacle, NYT is likely to learn itself a thing or two about boycotts.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Liberal society is ending, and you must swear allegiance to the People's Party, comrade. Otherwise, we will publicly denounce you, and will not permit you to engage in any business activity. There will be an ideological examination. Study hard!
It surely feels like it at least when every single major javascript framework has a #BLM header. Nothing that don't matter or are relevant to me since I live in northen europe.
Nice. I like that companies are putting their money where their mouth is, and not just doing cheap virtue signalling, like posting a black square on Instagram. I think, and hope, however, that Facebook will come out victorious; (1) freedom of speech is important, (2) it's not up to Facebook to be the arbitrer of what's allowed or not (it's up to the law), (3) advertisers need Facebook more than Facebook needs them, a…
I think this is pretty plainly untrue.
If you mean at best irrelevant for the company, that’s certainly not true — friends of mine (and myself!) absolutely make purchasing decisions based on the moral reputation of the company.
If you mean for the world, this also seems patently false to me. You can’t tell me that constantly seeing ads featuring gay couples as happy families doesn’t have a measurable impact on normalizing and aiding acceptance.
So because Mark Zuckerberg won't censor people with different opinions he is complacent in spreading fake news and hate? Wow, that kind of rhetoric is dangerous imo. For once I actually think Facebook have made the right call. Censoring people is wrong and Facebook should refrain from doing it. Let me decide what is true and false, I don't need Facebook or other people to decide that for me. Good job Facebook, thanks…
Societies have always had ways to determine what is true and what is lies. Facebook bypasses all of these, by allowing someone a direct connection into your open mind, where they can then take a shit. I prefer my mind shit free.
Facebook basically sells this drug unregulated.
Its basically a drug cartel defending the right of the peddlers to push the drug.
After the SSC debacle, NYT is likely to learn itself a thing or two about boycotts.
If we punish respected organizations (of any kind) for every gaffe, we would not have any left. In an era where the journalists are more under attack than ever, we might want to remember it is easier to tear things down than build them up.